The concept of multiculturalism cannot be credited narrowly to Europe, considering that Canada, Australia, and the US have decades-long records of putting the design into practice. There are bumps on the road in all cases – the US, for example, has to grapple with concerns over the looming demographic imbalance as the Hispanic part of the country's population grows – but the trio appears to do well enough when seen against the turbulent European background.

The parallel existence of the mushrooming ghettos and enclaves in the multicultural Europe alongside the traditional majority is marred with recurrent conflicts and a sense of permanent tension. As a result, Sarkozy, Merkel, and Cameron have to admit, in various ways but in a concert seldom seen otherwise, that “multiculturalism is dead”.

In fact, multiculturalism drew plenty of critical invectives from the outset. Former German chancellor and an outspoken opponent of the doctrine Helmut Schmidt warned already in 1992 that turning Germany, France, and Great Britain into recipients of massive immigration flows would cause their respective societies to erode away and explained that, even though certain ethical foundations for multiculturalism might actually exist, the idea was impractical under the conditions of democracy and individual freedoms. Schmidt's view apparently became even stronger in more than a decade, the point he made in a 2004 interview to Die Zeit being that “a multicultural society was intellectuals' illusion”.

Switzerland seems to be the only country in Europe to boast harmony and stability within a multicultural framework, but the Swiss confederation took centuries rather than decades to acquire its current shape and, importantly, represents a synthesis of congenial European cultures. The latter circumstance should prompt a look at multiculturalism from a wider perspective, in which the key questions are how “culture” and “civilization” interact within a multicultural context and whether the conflicts we witness in Europe (and elsewhere) are “clashes of civilizations” or, rather, clashes of cultures. Next significant question – are those in the European political class who think of a multicultural society as an end in itself, not as a step in the development of their original societies, heading in the right direction? – can only be answered if the “civilization vs. culture” dilemma is diligently resolved.

At birth, every civilization builds its founding narrative around specific notions of eternity and purpose of existence (individual and beyond) to gradually cast them into societal forms which, in part due to inertia, continue to define the human existence ages later. In essence, today's conflict cannot be read as rivalry between religiously opposite civilizations as in the epochs of the Crusades and the Reconquista. Instead, the clash involves civilizations of structurally opposite types – the tradition-based ones and those belonging to the emerging global and postindustrial realm. Post-industrialism and post-modernism unlocked the rise of a novel civilization which spurred its own architecture of culture, concepts, and standards, and those are increasingly hard to reconcile with the traditional European legacy.

Following A. Toynbee, Russia's theologian Rev. P. Florensky highlighted in his Cult and Culture the religious gnosis generally underlying the phenomena of culture and civilization. Beyond doubt, the majority of nations derived the foundations of their civilizations from a particular religious belief, and many steadfastly trace them back to the source. At the moment, the Muslim world stays in the phase of religious cohesion and is electrified as ever by its common convictions, but the European civilization is living through the era of division between traditionalism oriented towards Christian values and the galloping post-modernism. The internal split leaves the European civilization weakened and lukewarm as the apostasy within it deepens and the overall inertia prevails.

The above does not mean that Europeans no longer eye culture through the religious prism, though. A researcher studying migration remarks that a symbolic barrier sets the followers of Islam apart from the rest of the population, and that, moreover, the perceptions linked to this particular gap override any divisions or sense of commonality of other nature. The culture clashes thus become identity clashes.

It should be noted that the Christian world similarly isolated itself from that of Islam in the Middle Ages. Switching to the language of identities, we indirectly acknowledge the fact that we deal with civilizational differences already loaded with antagonisms. Europe's soul-searching undermines its positions in the duel and, for a faction of Europeans, appears to be a capitulation at the face of the escalating cultural invasion.

It contributes to the intensity of the conflict that Europe's centers of decision-making on migration policy steadily drift from national capitals to the globalist Brussels. The Lisbon treaty handed to the EU the supranational authority in regulating migration flows and integrating the newcomers community into the very European societies which not long ago handled the issue in their own ways. In contrast to Europeans, migrants almost automatically equate Europe's creed and its culture to which, given its sweepingly modified condition, they can't but react with alienation and outrage.

In the light of the above, one is tempted to bracket Europe's traditionalists and Muslims. V. Monakhov wrote in Otechestvennye Zapiski: “The Muslim presence in Europe translated into an unexpected configuration of alliances and ideological watersheds. It transpired that the value-based divisions stem from the secularization of European societies and from the specific culture engendered by the process. With religion uncompromisingly confined to the private sphere, the materialistic and recklessly consumerist culture easily captured the center stage. The dilemma that thus came into being is the choice between consumerism and hedonism on the one side and the culture rooted in religious ideals on the other. It makes perfect sense that on many occasions speakers for Vatican appealed to Muslims as natural allies against materialism”.

The truth is that the activity is essentially talk and that any such alliances would be inherently unsustainable. On the empirical level, immigrants feel that the Christian Europe surrendering miserably under pressure from the makers of the new world reneges on its role of the great monotheistic neighbor of Islam and slides into primitive paganism, materialism, or atheism. It should be born in mind to what extent politics, legislation, and daily lives in the world of Islam are interwoven with religion and the Quran to realize that Muslims interpret the historical process of secularization literally as the Christians' betrayal of their own God. The perception among the migrants, therefore, is that the message “A plague on both your houses” can be addressed to both European camps – the conservatives and the modernists – for either failing to hold their own or attempting to destroy the traditional lifestyles of Europeans and Muslims alike. Turkish premier R. Erdogan famously urged the Turks in Germany to brush off illusory alliances in the name of their original identity and to avoid being absorbed by the host society which, in the meantime, naively engaged in emigration debates.

An acquaintance of mine, a well-educated person and a practicing Muslim, once told me with a thinly veiled grudge: “The Muslim collaborationism during World War II is cited a lot to justify deportations, as if there were no collaborationists who were Russian, Ukrainian, etc. You know, there was the Muslim unit - the Caucasian Native Mounted Division - fighting on the Russian side in World War I, and Central Asia's Teke Türkmenleri, the Tatars of the Crimea, and others were absolutely loyal to the Tsar who knew he could rely on them”. I replied that the reason was that the wartime slogan in the pre-communist Russia used to be “For faith, the Tzar, and the homeland!”, with religion significantly placed first in the triad. Faith meant different things for various nations, with due respect for the religions of others, and the arrangement guaranteed the peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims in the country, as well as their mutual respect. The Soviets suppressed religion and imposed their official ideology on the country which crumbled the moment the ideology stopped being enforced.

Speaking of ideology, the collapse of multiculturalism in Europe casts a long shadow over the universality of liberal values as such. If multiculturalism apparently does not work for democracies, societies across the world – with their wide range of identities, cultures, etc. - must think twice before subscribing to it.

There is no single law to describe the forces of attraction and repulsion between civilizations, and the patterns of inter-civilizational relations are specific to countless historical and other circumstances. Nevertheless, it can be taken for granted - and that is for profound reasons – that individuals and societies are much more likely to be respected and viewed as credible partners by others if they are genuine loyalists of their own civilizations and cultures.

]]>autor.ru17@interaffairs.ru (Armen Oganesyan)Editor's ColumnMon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0400Syria: who will take responsibility for the «Responsibility to Protect»?https://lang.interaffairs.ru/index.php/en/main/editor-s-column/item/120-syria-who-will-take-responsibility-for-the-responsibility-to-protect
https://lang.interaffairs.ru/index.php/en/main/editor-s-column/item/120-syria-who-will-take-responsibility-for-the-responsibility-to-protect

In a twitter debate with the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Alexei Pushkov, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, observed that:

"He (President Obama) wants to protect the rule of international law prohibiting the use of chemical weapons."

This position, of course, echoes recent statements made by U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, in which he has repeatedly stressed that such crimes against humanity cannot go unpunished.

This thesis is essentially indisputable, yes, in fact, no one argues against it. The question is how, when, and based on what criteria can a country be convicted and punished for this offense? It would be too easy for any of these actions to be met with tomahawk missiles and drone strikes.

If it is a crime against humanity, then humanity should be the judge. If someone in the name of humanity carries out a judgment, verifying and enforcing the verdict, which they themselves have made on behalf of humanity, it is absurd from the point of view of the law and dangerous on the basis of the philosophy of such an approach.

With so many protests, reasonable and firm opposition, even from allies, someone's “messianic “action is not legitimized under international law, but is a selfish or collective Inquisition.

As we know, the goal does not justify the means. And it would be absurd to defend the interests of international law, while actually breaking international law, under which the signature of the United States is included.

The truth is, that from time to time you can hear a reference to the fact that the resolution allegedly adopted by the UN, entitled "Responsibility to Protect” gives the right to engage in such attacks. In reality, such a resolution under resolution number 1674 was approved by the UN Security Council. Moreover, it is based on a document was that unanimously approved by all of the states representated at the UN World Summit in 2005. Along with humanitarian, diplomatic and other peaceful means of resolution, it acknowledges the possibility, mind you just the possibility, for decisive collective action ("We are prepared to take collective action").

But all of these decisive actions "designed to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” could be feasible, but only as resolutions declared by the UN.

One must admit that the United States has made a considerable contribution to the development of this resolution. Former U.S. Secretary of State Albright and U.S. President's Special Representative in Sudan Williamson, co-chaired a working group on the resolution "Responsibility to Protect”. The working group headed by them especially emphasized in their report that any action under this resolution should be carried out " in accordance with the UN Charter” , which means that the body that makes the final decision is the UN Security Council .

This document is significant in that, firstly, it does not imply any automatic response, which would be the adoption of military action. Secondly, it eliminates any sole or collective action without the approval of the UN Security Council, which would put them outside of international law.

As rightly observed by British General Lord Dannatt, even the flagrant violation of moral principles in the use of chemical weapons“is not an open invitation for interference in the internal affairs of another country." In this case, the General, of course, tends to assume the use of chemical weapons by the troops of Assad’s government.

However, the United States has not always adhered to the principle of the inevitability of punishment in such cases. Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times reminds us that America, which since 1945 has seen itself as a guarantor of global security, has never considered military intervention to prevent or put an end to a conflict over the violation of human rights. And even more specifically, the United States did not intervene in any way in a situation where chemical weapons were used during the Iran -Iraq war.

There is, however, another legal rule that is common to both national and international law: the presumption of innocence. In this age of our virtual world, to trust in videography and interceptions of telephone conversations is without foundation. The re-enactment of an attack by criminals dressed in Polish uniforms on a German radio station played a tragic role in the outbreak of the Second World War.

One would have to strongly believe in the moral standards of the opposition, to avoid possible manipulation and rigging by Assad’s opponents.

The latest information by German intelligence calls into question the possibility of such action on the part of government troops. In addition, we see complete confusion in assessing the possible motives of such actions on the part of the officials in Damascus. Here, none of the intelligence services, even countries that actively support military action can agree and all versions look extremely illogical and contradictory.

Obviously, there are those who are right to say that the UN inspection does not give an answer to the main question: who has used chemical weapons in Syria? “The author" can, for example, turn out to be one leaked into or infiltrated from, groups of foreign countries, neighboring or distant.

But firstly, all of the arguments for the possible conclusions will be made in public, and, as the saying goes, "laid on the table." Finally, the Security Council could consider the conclusions presented by the Commission, which may in the future form the basis of a resolution on Syria.

Striking before the conclusion of the commission, without a discussion of the results will be insulting to the brave people who have put their lives at risk in the search for truth, and a blunt challenge to the UN and international law.

So the solution for Washington, in fact, confirms the opinion of those skeptics who see behind its actions not a desire to protect morality and law, but a strong desire to further its far-reaching geopolitical plans.

American foreign policy, in fact stands upon a red line, which was not defined by President Obama but by the new Realpolitik. Namely, it is the fact that no one today is a one-man force, or carries "the white man's burden” in relation to the rest of the world.

Unless, of course, we do not want to plunge the world into chaos. Kipling’s times are a thing of the past.

]]>autor.ru17@interaffairs.ru (Armen Oganesyan)Editor's ColumnWed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0400A Second Korea: to be or not to behttps://lang.interaffairs.ru/index.php/en/main/editor-s-column/item/38-a-second-korea-to-be-or-not-to-be
https://lang.interaffairs.ru/index.php/en/main/editor-s-column/item/38-a-second-korea-to-be-or-not-to-be

In his book, "On China," Henry Kissinger tried to identify on a world map the most explosive point that could trigger World War III. In his view, the main threat arises out of a tangle of contradictions about the political future of Pakistan and its regional environment. However events on the Korean Peninsula bring us back to the old, unhealed wounds of history and a relapse is dangerous and unpredictable.

Coming out of the armistice agreement, the DPRK returned the separated parts of the country to a de jure state of war. The question of whether or not there would be a unified Korean state was loudly discussed on both sides of the now almost arbitrary boundary. However these days talk about union are only in the context of mutual military threats. And Seoul does not keep it secret that it will be supported by a broad coalition of forces, primarily the United States.

Is it possible to separate the rhetoric from the real intentions of the parties in these mutual threats?

The North Korea Party press warns its people and the world: "We must be prepared for any eventuality." And here is a rare case where one can trust the propaganda - Pyongyang does not know what to do in the event of a deterioration of the situation in the country as a result of UN sanctions. The Leaders and people of the country remember the terrible famine of the 1990s, the results of which are felt to this day. But most importantly for the current regime is not to lose face, and maintain an aura as the holders of a historical mission in the eyes of the people.

As my friend, who at one time had a chance to visit with the UNESCO mission to the DPRK said, "It's not a different country, it's a different planet." That was said by a man who had spent a large part of his life in the USSR. The same thing was also testified to by an American journalist, Barbara Demick, who recently received in Vienna the annual international prize for the best book on human rights. The book is entirely devoted to the situation in North Korea, and the author admits that it is impossible to underestimate the sincerity of faith of North Koreans in regard to their leaders: this is not a cult of personality; it is a faith that reaches real deification.

If the "father of the Korean people," Kim il Sung "caused trees to flower and snow to melt", the birth of his son, "was accompanied by a flag of burning stars in the heavens." Swallows, came down from heaven, and sang a song about "a general who will rule the world." But, of course, first of all a conqueror of nations must unite their own people. Without it, the whole paradigm of the future development of the Korean people and the world historical role of their leaders would collapse.

The award ceremony in Vienna for Barbara Demick, bureau chief of the newspaper "Los Angeles Times", in Beijing, coincided with the worsening of the Korean issue after the UN Security Council sanctions. Responding to the news of the day, the journalist expressed her view that only North Korea is interested in a united Korea, probably referring to the ideological and economic reasons. In contrast, South Korea has not committed to this development, as they believe that this union is too costly an undertaking. Japan also is not interested in strengthening its economic competitor. And the U.S. does not want to lose the reason for its military presence in the region in the face of growing Chinese influence. Only later, as if to confirm this view, it was reported that the Pentagon is going to place additional funds for missile defense in Alaska and California, in response to the "nuclear threat" from the DPRK.

And what about China and Russia, who voted for UN sanctions against North Korea?

China is not interested in the unification of Korea. For it the status quo is preferable. Beijing cannot assume that Pyongyang will play the decisive role in the reunification of the divided nation. This means that South Korea will become an even more powerful neighbor in the region of a growing confrontation between the U.S. and China. It is enough to pay attention to the sharply increased interest in Beijing to develop its navy and merchant marine. China is implementing a maritime expansion program, and is in no way interested in strengthening South Korea and its ally in the Sea of Japan. That is why the rhetoric from China immediately after the decision of the Security Council became pacifying and moderated its very sharply hostile rhetoric towards the U.S.

As for Russia, it is just interested in the reunification of Korea into a single state, but without the guns and cruise missiles. Under the pretext of a Korean threat, which remains largely hypothetical, if we talk about the ability of North Korean missiles to cause serious damage to the security of America, Washington receives additional arguments in favor of the deployment of new missile defense systems already on United States territory. This fact can disrupt nuclear and missile parity between the U.S. and Russia. If we talk about the economy, Russia is primarily interested in a unified state as the guarantor of the construction of the Korean branch of "Gazprom" - an ambitious and profitable project.

Such disparate approaches and interests, on the one hand, confuse the situation, and on the other hand, give the appearance of a delicate balance, as if to keep the situation around Korea on the brink of serious upheavals.

For their part, the South Koreans are not indifferent to the prospect of war with their "blood related neighbors." South Korea is quite a prosperous state, accustomed to a peaceful and prosperous lifestyle, and to undermine their welfare by wars and mergers is not really their intent.

No wonder that a series of rallies and demonstrations were held in South Korea near the North Korean border after the announcement of the joint military exercises with the U.S. With all the geopolitical apportionments it is not to be discounted that the internal political situation in neighboring countries may at some point play a more significant role than the disjointed "orchestra" of external players.

The current North Korean leader Kim Jong- Un is the youngest of all the heads of state in the world. This very special person is associated with the expectations of the North Koreans. If Kim Il-Sung was named "leader of the people", the Korean national development theorist, his successor, Kim Jong Il was called "the Great Leader", who was intended to build up the spiritual and material forces of the Koreans for the implementation of his father’s covenants. But Kim Jong IL’s most common title was "Commander."

Of course, from the young son of the great general, who was declared the "Great successor" decisive action was expected, which so far have poured out in statements and threats to turn the South Korean islands into a "sea of fire."

The integrity and universality of support for the regime made a strong impression on Barbara Demick, although she has published a series of interviews with North Koreans who fled to South Korea. However, a number of experts, including Russians, believe that this is not the case. North Korea is the only country that does not have Internet access. The country is closed to outsiders. Nevertheless, a number of international organizations report that 200 thousand dissidents and opposition members and 40 thousand Christians are languishing in North Korean concentration camps. The latter are a special case because of their belief in God but not in Kim Il Sung and his heirs, which undermines the very basis of the deified regime.

If not large cracks, then at least small cracks in the notorious monolith clearly exist, which means that for power the urgent task is to maintain rigid social consolidation under external pressure. This makes Pyongyang increasingly unpredictable, the situation on the peninsula is reaching a political dead end, and the temptation to get out of it by the use of military force, is highly probable.

More than 60 years ago during the Korean War, the United States sought the consent of London to use the nuclear bomb against Korea. The world was on the brink of nuclear war, but the British were opposed.

Today, the threshold of war for Korea has declined. It is unlikely that Pyongyang, with its back against the wall, and with economic sanctions and military activity near its borders, will consult with anyone.

The head of SAXO Bank, Lars Christensen said in September last year, "the Eurozone does not need to be saved, it must be scrapped." It seems that the events on the small romantic island of Cyprus are finally consolidating this trend, which for lack of political will would be not so much administrative as cumulative and suicidal in character.

"All these officials are afraid to look the problem in the eye. The main problem is that there is one currency, but many completely different economies. Greece, with its uncompetitive economy, needs a weak currency. The German currency, obviously, should be stronger than the current euro. There is only one solution - to make more currencies. "

In fact, one of the major "sins" of building the Eurozone was the lack of any consideration of the specifics of the European economies. You could argue with Christensen, that the lack of competitiveness of Greece is largely determined by its current position within the Eurozone.

It is significant that before the beginning of the crisis in Cyprus, no one included it in the list of countries in a critical zone of financial and economic collapse. Today Cyprus is under a whole downpour from critics who accuse its business model of insolvency.

However, you should listen to the opinion of the Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Chris Pissaridis, who stressed that the emphasis had been on the development of service industries and tourism, as the optimum model for Cyprus, of which it had no experience in its historical tradition of industrial development. In turn, the magazine "The Economist" highlights the high level of qualifications of the Cypriots and the non-corruptible nature of the bureaucracy. However in the same way that Brussels ignored the characteristics of the economic development of Hungary, Slovakia, the Balkans and the Baltic states, Brussels imposed common standards and approaches on them, and that has now led to the stratification of the Eurozone and the European Union between the successful and the failed, the prosperous and the subsidized, the responsible and the irresponsible.

These days many say that Cyprus was put on a subsidized credit needle. And this is true. Because, through the actions of the "troika", a sector of the Cypriot economy, which provided 70% of national GDP, was broken. It is impossible to make up for these losses, even at the expense of Russian tourists and the Cypriot sunshine.

The authors and the main actors in the European political economy, diligently write prescriptions, which drive the disease deeper into the body. Christensen likens their activities to boys playing, who chase a can down the road, putting off the serious problems to the indefinite future. In order not to bear the burden of the Cypriot problems, Brussels and Berlin demanded austerity and belt-tightening from the Cypriots.

The curious situation is that the current "incompetence" of the Cyprus economic model came to light after it helped Brussels rescue the Greek government and banks from collapse, when the tax haven used its capital for buying Greek debt. This impulse of national and European solidarity proved costly for the smaller European brother. On this occasion, there was not a referendum. Everything was done in a "quadrangle" of the Cypriot government, central European authorities, Berlin and, of course, Athens themselves.

In talking about the ineffectiveness of the Cyprus economy there is another unlikely reason in that high levels of welfare of the population were guaranteed exclusively by local factors. For example, the average income of a Cypriot in annual terms amounted to 15.3 thousand dollars, but the purchasing power had been calculated at 32 thousand dollars a year. The Cypriot youth, even by European standards, are the most mobile. In the ranking of university education in the EU, young Cypriots are in sixth place, and are educated in the best universities in Europe. Today, many of them do not want to return home, and those who lose their jobs are going to leave Cyprus.

"European bureaucracy does a lot, but nothing changes. Instead, it only gets worse," says Christensen. In fact, the decisions taken at the European level tighten the pan-European crisis into an even tighter knot. Economists calculated that the recipe for austerity, in reducing the purchasing power of Europeans in the single Euro, would lead to a loss of GDP, exceeding the amount of the single Euro. All these measures were, according to "The Guardian", useful only if there was a growth in the number of trading partners, if low interest rates guaranteed economic growth, and if the EU were given more time to resuscitate its financial capabilities, especially in the social sphere. Finally, if the European macroeconomists were not guided by the fiscal deficit figures, but instead by indicators of structural deficits of the real sector of the economies of European countries.

Today in Cyprus, as well as in most of the Mediterranean countries, which ultimately undermined the confidence of the world financial and economic elites, there is no person more unpopular than the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "I am extremely pleased that a solution has been found, and that Cyprus will avoid insolvency," Merkel said recently in Bavaria. But it was precisely this insolvency, the closeness of which will stretch the prospects for their country for years to come. The German Chancellor also stressed that the involvement of the private sector for the adjustment of rescue of the banking system in Cyprus is valid. Also she noted that taxpayers should not have to save the banks.

Reasonable questions arise. Is it not the taxpayers across Europe that are supporting the falling banks? Is not the taxpayer who is losing social benefits and government support in all critical issues, ranging from wages and ending in a flawed health care system? According to the Eurostat database, unemployment in Europe since the beginning of the year had reached a record high of 12%, which in absolute terms, totals 26 million people. These figures are in sharp contrast with the unemployment situation in the U.S., which in February fell to 7.7%, the lowest unemployment rate in the U.S. since 2008.

Mark Cliff, chief economist of ING Group, said that Europe was "trapped in a vicious circle, and the policy is clearly doomed to failure." We can already hear the opinion that the Eurozone must shrink to a narrow range of European countries: Germany, France, the Benelux countries and Austria.

Such perceptions actually reflect the true picture. If anyone thought that the Eurozone could be reduced to a walking universal banknote and that Europe could ignore its inherent diversities and identities, then this illusion is now shattered before our eyes. The single Eurozone could only be achieved by countries with a more or less uniform level of development of the banking and industrial sectors, with the same level of confidence in financial institutions in the South and the North and full freedom of movement of capital. Otherwise, the Euro is doomed to become a weakening currency over time, ensured only by the German economy and its political ambitions.

As for Russia, it is necessary beforehand to think about strategies for the future, as the crisis in Europe, of course, affects the entire area from the Baltic to the Pacific. It is necessary to think about the fact that Russian capital, now and possibly in the future, has its assets tainted by a "black mark." No matter how gray and criminally Russian capital may have been exported offshore, it is the capital which, to use today's terminology, was "plundered from the Russian people." It must belong to them and should not be used to stabilize the credit history of the European Union, of which Russia is not a part. However, we must agree with those who say that this impudence can sober up “shadow businesses,” and the authorities.

Here it is possible to suggest a few steps, which, however, would be ineffective if not executed as a batch. It is the creation of an authorized bank (s) for the adoption of capital deposited in a country in general, under an unconditional and anonymous financial amnesty. Such steps would be in the interests of both business and government, because otherwise, one side loses everything without the other side having to purchase anything.

Russian academic circles believe that the Cypriot option and everything to do with the presence of Russian money in tax havens should be carefully considered, and based on this analysis, immediate action be taken against the financial voluntarism of Berlin and Brussels.

The body of Patroclus was lying lifeless, but around him the Achaean men and the Trojans continued their vituperative dispute. A week after the magnificent funeral, the debate about Margaret Thatcher’s legacy still has not subsided. The pro-conservative press is putting the former premier on a world-historical pedestal under the slogan "Back to" Thatcherism ". The media which is closer to Labour supporters, claims that Thatcher, whose page in history has turned forever, still was not able to rise above being seen in a purely British context.

With the latter, apparently, it's hard to disagree. Margaret Thatcher was not only a true, but also a devout daughter of her nation. However, the fervor with which she defended the interests of her country, are not only worthy of respect, but are an example to politicians for all times. It is symbolic that her remains will rest next to another great Briton - Winston Churchill.

Of course, the scale of the personality of Sir Winston, who sailed "the British ship" through the fires of the Second World War, is not comparable with Mrs. Thatcher. And yet they are united by one thing - a common desire, feeling and belief in the “greatness of Britain”. Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are two different-sized fragments of the same granite rocks, the name of which was the British Empire. What united them also was the fact that both of these outstanding personalities came to grief, after making tremendous efforts to revive the former glory of the Queen of the Seas.

Churchill was a staunch anti-Communist, but was even willing to conduct separate negotiations with Stalin about the postwar repartition of Europe, trying to secure British interests. However, Roosevelt’s strong stance, and Stalin's evasiveness soon led him to the obvious conclusion that the two new superpowers would take advantage of the fruits of victory in Europe. Britain would have to be content with a special relationship with one of them. The post-war debts and the wounds of war to the British economy proved irreparable. Slowly but steadily she stagnated.

Then along came a leader, whose will power, determination and dedication were able to renew faith in a great future for the British Isles, but who still was not able to change the distribution of the main roles on the world historical stage.

Yes, probably, Churchill's words that "the wars of giants will be replaced by the wars of pygmies," can be applied to the Falklands war. However, the war with Argentina produced a small triumphant happiness, which lit up the eyes of British patriots. And it was thanks to Iron Margaret.

In fact, Thatcher’s "Iron" was manifested much more not overseas but at home. I used to work in London as a radio correspondent during the time of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership and I happened to meet with people, who made very different assessments of her reforms, her ruthless crushing of the largest nationalized industries, and the “Thatcherism” that had already taken shape by this time.

There is no need to repeat what so many have spoken and written in the last few days. I want to focus on just a curious statement in the magazine "The Economist".

Comparing the figures of Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, "The Economist" wrote that Sir Winston, for all his great merits, did not create any "ism." It is characteristic of our time to focus on all things economic and this is so ... ungrateful. However, "The Economist" would not be "The Economist", had it not spoken in such a vein, being a staunch advocate of monetarism. But here, there are at least two things you can count on with certainty for any unfortunate apologetics for "Thatcherism". The first is that, unlike the other "isms", "Thatcherism" was not a universal doctrine or belief like socialism, communism, Buddhism and even Maoism. That it could not be, because it's just a British model embodying the postulates of the Friedman School of Economics. Even if we put together "Thatcherism" with "Reaganomics" the coordinated universal teachings still will not work due to the fact that both of these models are subordinate to the Chicago economic doctrine.

Changes in the economic landscape of Britain and the revival of a sense of national identity are the undoubted merits of Thatcher. However, during the last years of her life she carried the heavy burden that "Thatcherism" and "Reaganomics", with their unquestioning faith in all market regulatory and fiscal levers of economic management, did not work. Moreover, it plunged the world economy into a severe crisis which has still not been overcome to this day, and thanks to globalization, is now of an enormous scale.

Probably the saddest thing is that all of Margaret Thatcher’s titanic efforts of shock therapy to broaden the British economy to a new level of world competitive quality, completely failed. British goods and British exports were not even remotely on a par with the expansion in German exports and those in other developed countries in Europe and Asia. The breakthrough did not happen; the reforms did not bring British production to a new level of competitiveness. The conversion of a tiny part of the country to a World Financial Center was, obviously, following all the same axioms of monetarism, but at the same time one must recognize the failed attempts to revive Britain’s industrial might.

Today, the financial attractiveness of the City seems fairly assured, but the events in Cyprus remind us that great shocks and explosions are often preceded by smaller ones. The current crisis has wiped out many ideas about what is probable and what is improbable in the current economy, especially in finance.

We can say that Thatcher survived "Thatcherism", which was, in reality, a local phenomenon confined within the British Isles. Only thanks to the uniqueness of Thatcher as an individual person, has "Thatcherism" acquired the illusory features of versatility. In this sense, ironically, the "Iron Lady" remains as the character in the Russian film "Lady Macbeth of Mtsenski District.”

Of course, these days a lot has been said about the relationship between Thatcher and Gorbachev, which seems to have been quite special, and I would say, of an unprecedented nature in the Cold War era.

In my time working in the department of broadcasting in the UK, I remember a strictly confidential order not to cover Gorbachev's visit to London on a wide scale, even though back then back he was second in command in the Soviet Union. Someone was being vigilant. For his part, Mr. Bukowsky, an experienced dissident, suggests that Reagan was trying to persuade the British prime minister that Gorbachev was a product of the system, an apparatchik who wanted to modernize Communism and the Soviet Union, to make it more resilient, and no more than that .

Thatcher strongly disagreed with Reagan, and saw in Gorbachev a reformer capable of gradually transforming not only the facade, but the whole core of the Soviet system. Bukowsky was overwhelmingly on the side of Ronald Reagan and repeatedly tried to convince Margaret Thatcher of the error of her sympathies towards Gorbachev. However, history has shown that Thatcher was more far-sighted than Reagan. Gorbachev led the Soviet Union to the edge of the historical abyss. It only needed a bit of effort to push it over, and Boris Yeltsin did that.

Strong characters in history are usually tragic characters. Even in some moments it is impossible to escape the impression of some similarity between the "Iron Lady" and the provincial Mrs. Marple, played brilliantly in the English TV series.

In Margaret Thatcher there was a profound British common sense. She was quite bourgeois in origin, but climbing up the political ladder, she took on the features of a typical high class lady.

Many photos of Thatcher’s visits to Russia convey a genuine interest and desire to understand who are this nation, the Russians. This genuine interest reminds one of Sir Winston Churchill, who, when receiving a guard of honor on the eve of the Yalta Conference, paying close attention, peered into the faces of the soldiers lined up in a row. He also wanted to understand: who are these Russian guys? I do not think Thatcher and Churchill understood Russia, but this interest and genuine desire to understand starkly set them apart from many, many generations of Western politicians. Let us be grateful to them for that.

The new Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has not made much of an impression on the Senate Committee who approved his post. A Republican senator’s question on whether the new Secretary planned to develop or not the oil-bearing shelf in order to lift Europe's dependence on Russian oil has remained unanswered. Also Moniz dodged the question about the development of the huge reserves of natural gas in Alaska.

The impression given is that, despite the advances that have allowed the United States in the short term to approach energy independence and create the conditions for the export of domestic energy resources, the Secretary does not have a thought-out program for the energy development of the country.

A significant feature of the debate around the appointment of a new head of energy was the clear geo-politicization. As the newspaper The New York Times wrote: "If the Senate confirms the nomination of Ernest Moniz as the next Secretary of Energy, he has to use his new position to seriously review the energy situation not only in the U.S. but also in China."

Professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ernest Moniz had been Under Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton. He is known for his views as an advocate of clean energy, especially nuclear and gas. At the same time, he is an advocate of shale gas, which U.S. ecologists are wary of. The main argument of the ecologists is that Moniz approaches will push back the development of alternative renewable energy sources for many years to come.

Defending their political protégé, the Democrats offer the environmentalists the chance to unite around a program of development of shale gas in China, which has reserves almost 50% larger than those in the United States.

In the spring of last year, in the report "The Future of Coal," Moniz and his co-authors were strongly in favor of strict control over the after effects of the consumption of coal in the world. Now Moniz has been invited to intervene in the energy situation in China in order to protect the global environment. With its vast resources of shale gas, China as the second largest economy in the world, can avoid the huge growth of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal.

In fact, China has substantially increased the share of energy from coal consumption, increasing greenhouse gas emissions by 8-10% per year. By 2020, China will emit four times more greenhouse gases than the U.S. So a double challenge has been put before Moniz: to promote American shale gas technology and to ensure its environmental cleanliness. Obviously, by using the same American technology. In other words, the U.S. industry has to show that cleaner production can be profitable.

The active promotion of the U.S. in China’s energy market has political implications. If the former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time stated the need to oust Russian energy resources from Europe, then the gas boom in China, provided by American technology, apparently, has to perform a similar task in relation to the supply of Russian gas and oil to the Chinese market.

However, the implementation of these plans raises many difficulties. It is unlikely that China will agree to an active U.S. role in the development of its energy resources – the "strategic caution" of Beijing to Washington is too high. In the U.S. the opposition to such plans will always be high, since any facilitation in the energy situation, much less a decline in their prices, can transform the second economy in the world in to the first.

From an environmental point of view the technology on which hydraulic fracturing is based, can lead to the fact that the gas wells poison groundwater. For China, which is experiencing an acute shortage of fresh water, especially in the North, such technologies are not acceptable. In addition, the production of shale gas results in a large release of methane, which is potentially more dangerous to global warming than all other known factors.

For this reason, Germany has refused to produce shale gas. In Poland, which has the most significant reserves of such gas in Europe, Exxon Mobil declared the gas wells to be unprofitable and abandoned their development. It is estimated that the introduction of "North Stream" and "South Stream" gas from Russia will in any case be cheaper and more reliable than the economic benefit from the development of shale gas in Europe.

Yet at the same time, Russia should seriously think about which path the global development and distribution of energy will take. Technological uncertainty may be short-lived.

It should be borne in mind that in China over the last few years there has been an impressive government program for the implementation and support of clean, "green" technologies. Such technology is still at the development stage in Russia. Today, they could become not only a means of protecting the environment in the Russian expanses, but also prove to be an important argument in the promotion of the economic interests of developing countries, not excluding China.